Comments about ‘Debate renewed with change in Book of Mormon introduction’

that DNA evidence should not be trusted due to lack of a control group. Where,
by the way, is the contol group when evaluating spiritial evidence? Silly me,
for a moment I forgot that things of the spirit do not require a control group
because all one has to do is pray and receive a warm fuzzy feeling. If
comparisons are going to be made, the same standard should be applied to both
sides of the argument. Apologists seem to have no problem employing the same
faulty logic that they accuse others of using against them. Talk about circular
logic, lol.

monilee, the Bible has questionable things to it just as any document that old
and ancient typically would. However, Joseph Smith can be much more easily
researched and examined since his work is less than 2 centuries. I agree that
the Bible is contrdictory, however it does have some evidence that perhaps
verify the people and regions existed. If you look at hat Joseph Smith claimed
honestly, one would have to deduce his work to be self-serving and mythical. I
hate to say that as I wanted to believe, but my faith and feelings can't
supercede the facts. Any rational person who does their homework will always
find the same thing: the facts do NOT support the story. In this crazy world,
it would've been nice to know that we had things figured out for the next life.
At his point it's hard to trust any organized religion realizing most are
obviously set up to aggrandize the people at the top and let the lower tiers
finance it. If God exists, I don't need someone w/no bigger brain than mine to
help me interpret. Everyone should use their God-given intellect to figure out
the sad reality and do their homework.

The Book of Mormon is an ancient record, written by prophets for the eternal
advantage of future generations. What benefit? To invite all mankind to come
unto Christ. Baring this in mind, the phrase under dispute, found in the 1981
edition (as well as in other editions) reads, the principle ancestors of the
American Indians. The work principle, as used above, does not emphatically state
that there were no other groups living on the ancient American continent. A
close study of the text validates the multi-migration theory. Consider the book
of Jacob (Ch. 7), Ether (Ch. 2-6), both clearly state that there were various
groups of people living upon the land. For the purposes of the Book of Mormon,
the Nephites and the Lamanites are principle to its contents.The
truthfulness of the Book cannot be determined by a scientific study, nor by an
archaeological find. Truth can only be received by and through the source of
all truth. That source was the author, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind,
namely Christ Jesus.

The thing that anyone looking at this issue should probably consider is WHO the
Lamanites were. According to the Book of Mormon, around the time of Jacob (Jacob
1:14 - look it up), the word "Lamanite" was used as a generic term much like the
word "Gentile" is used in the Bible. They used the word "Lamanite" to describe
anyone who was unfriendly to the Nephites and the word "Nephite" to describe
anyone who was friendly to the Nephites. So technically, if Mayans were enemies
to the Nephites, they would have been called "Lamanites" as well. I think the
old word "principle" was probably correct, but the new wording 'among' is
probably more technically correct. I welcome the change. We can't go blaming the
prophets by shouting: "THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!" because this particular
information has never been revealed, they're only trying to describe what seems
reasonable. Now if the into said: "and they are the ONLY ancestors of the
American Indians." well, then that would be a another story now wouldn't it.

To answer those who ask: "why is this significant?": The research shows that 99%
of the American Indians can trace ancestry back to Asia (Mongolia, Siberia) and
the other 1% can trace it back to Europe (mostly Spain). Now where are the
American Indians that are "among" any ancestry from Jerusalem? They don't
exist!To those who say the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon should be
based on confirmation through the spirit: shouldn't the science back up that
spiritual confirmation? There is no science to back up the Book of Mormon and
there is certainly NO evidence to confirm the Book of Abraham! To go
along with something because of spirituality is in no way wrong, but science and
spirituality should not conflict. Find real truth.

To those who say the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon can only come from the
source, where is the source? God? How does he communicate? making you feel good
or bad about something? By your definition of truth and how to obtain it I
believe watching football on Sundays is "good and true" because I feel
good about it. I also feel the police are "bad and evil" since my heart
skips a beat when their lights flash behind me when I'm driving and I have
a negative emotional reaction. Prescribing an "eternal truth" to your
emotional reaction is the pinnacle of pride and selfishness. Using FACTS, LOGIC,
REASONING, etc.to guide your decisions and philosophies is what we should all be
doing. "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is
answers that may never be questioned." I have a good emotional reaction to
this post so it must be "true".